Last week, Logan director James Mangold went on a bit of a tirade, discussing his dislike of post-credit scenes in today’s movies. The man didn’t pull any punches from what he felt was a trend that he feels plays too big a role in modern filmmaking.
After reading his comments, some may have even felt he was a little bit too harsh on that front. Luckily for us, it sounds like Mangold is receptive to other opinions, and took to Twitter to clarify his thoughts in a less expletive-laden explanation. Here’s what he had to say:
“Many folks commented on my diatribe re: end credits scenes. Good points made by some who disagree. My vehemence comes from a belief these scenes r cinematic MSG/crack. Of course they feel good. They are designed to do that, like ads, as they hook you to buy the next films and at the same time, I feel like the omnipresent expectation of them cheapens the integrity of a theatrical experience as the movie doesn’t stick its ending but rather dribbles to an end with a series of pleasing vignettes/ads for the thing they will sell you next year. So its not so much the scenes I despise as much as I fear that movies (an art form I deeply love) are not advanced when they are no longer functioning as a form with a beginning middle and end but rather as part of a serialized money machine. These scenes promote a slightly false sense of fully realized “universe” as if everyone behind scenes knows exactly what’s next in a saga, when the truth is a bit less charted despite what many tell a sycophantic press that makes $ on the “universes” & the gossip mill they create”
I can definitely see where he comes from here. It sounds that so long as the story in the main film holds up completely on its own — and isn’t trying to survive on the strengths of its tease to another film — then he’s fine with the idea of them. More than anything, he hates the “ad” aspect of them, which is understandable, and doesn’t like it when a film wholly relies on that final stinger.
But he wasn’t quite done yet. He also has some beef with the term “Easter egg.”
“Lastly, the term “easter egg”‘s a bit infantile &, at least 2 me, feels condescending toward a thoughtful & intellectual audience that might be treated w/ more respect than imagining them as kids jumping around trying to guess storylines from breadcrumbs dropped by corporations.”
What do you think of Mangold’s comments? Do you agree with him? Let us know your thoughts down below!
Don’t forget to share this post on your Facebook wall and with your Twitter followers! Just hit the buttons on the top of this page.
SOURCE: James Mangold